Freedom of Choice?

Whether you are you circumcised or not is not our concern at all. We firmly defend that it is an indispensable human right that bodies be at the full disposal of their owners. Everyone has the moral right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body.

To choose is to make conscious decisions. Something, we believe, a child, not to speak a newborn, is unable to do. We feel that only adults should be allowed to practice circumcision on themselves.

The lost receptors do not fire. The circumcised cannot directly feel what they have lost. Eventually they may have memories of it. Memories, however, change with time, and fade. The cortical and psychological reorganizations override and distort them.

Can those who are circumcised at infancy really appreciate the sensitivity they have lost?

Resorting to an irremediable option is not exactly a choice. To choose means to pick out from available possibilities. And here a question arises: can anyone really decide what he wants before testing it at least once? Is selection of an irreversible option really a choice?

Can circumcision of adults be considered as resulting from a well-founded choice?

We are all free to take inadequate decisions. Yet we are not responsible for them as far as we have had no true choice. Given the consequences of the circumcision are not fatal we could eventually normalize them later. Once the irreparable is done nothing can be done about it but justify it. When a deformity becomes standard, it apparently becomes ‘normal’. There is no such thing as a prevalent abnormality.

The circumcised can never compare the advantages of what they have chosen. Theirs was a choice without alternative.

What could be the most common motivation of parents to circumcise their children?